ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003465
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Kitchen Porter | Cafe |
Representatives | Self -represented. | Cafe General Manager |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00003465 | 22/02/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy
Date of Hearing: 23/05/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker has presented a dispute concerning his employer’s sexual harassment of him in July 2022. The worker was employed as a kitchen porter in the employer’s tearooms from 27/6/2022 to 16/9/2023. He earned €11.50 an hour. He referred his dispute to the WRC on 1/2/2024. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker’s dispute concerns the then head chef’s ‘sexual harassment and treatment of him and the failure of the employer to address the matter after he had left. During the period July – August 2023, the head chef frequently commented to him about his legs and told him that he was wearing very short shorts. He considers this to be harassment. The worker felt discomforted by these remarks which he viewed to be sexual in nature and felt his dignity was violated. The head chef made comments about the worker’s weight after his return from holidays in the last week of July 2023. The worker could not recall the exact comments. The worker overheard the head chef state to another chef if you give some of the good stuff to X ( the worker), on a night out, he’ll do what you want. The worker states that good stuff in the context in which it was said means cocaine. He also considers this comment to be sexual in nature. Other incidents which are indicative of harassment are the proximity of the head chef to him in the kitchen which was a tight space and which he found to be intimidatory. The worker did make a written complaint to the CEO after 16/10/2023. She did return his call, but the line was poor, and she said she’d ring back which she did. The worker hung up ,sent another email to the CEO on 17/10/23 asking her to call. He sent a further email on the 2/11/23. She failed to address the matter with him. The worker denies that there was any reference in his contract to clothing. The employer did not provide him with clothing. The previous chef allowed him to wear shorts. The best solution now for the worker is compensation for the emotional and psychological distress as a result of the head chef’s treatment of him . His well-being was ignored, and his dignity was offended.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer was represented by the general manager but who functioned as the head chef and the worker’s line manager at the material time. The worker was an incredible, fantastic employee with the exception of his refusal to wear suitable protective clothing in a hazardous environment. The worker wore GAA style football shorts. On numerous occasions he asked the worker not to wear such shorts, but the worker replied that longer trousers did not suit him/ were uncomfortable. The industry standard is to cover legs when faced with the prospect of being splashed with hot oil, boiling water, or chemicals. He has seen workers injured by these products. The worker’s contract requires him to wear the uniform provided or safe clothing. The CEO asked him why the worker was wearing shorts. The kitchen shared by them was the smallest in which he had ever worked and inevitably led to people brushing unintentionally against each other. He denies that he ever made the worker feel uncomfortable. He denies the statement about the complainant being compliant if given “good stuff” The worker never complained to him or the CEO while there.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The worker has made a complaint of sexual harassment and a complaint that his dignity has been offended. This is not a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998-2015 but one under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. I find the contention that a request to wear protective clothing as opposed to football shorts while operating in close proximity to hazardous materials constitutes sexual harassment to be border line nonsensical and stretches credulity to the outer limits. The remark about the worker’s compliance after being “given good stuff” is contested. His statement that he complained to the CEO after he had left his employment but before he submitted his complaint to the WRC was not contested. The employer failed to provide him with any codes under which his complaints could be examined or to close the matter in any way. For this failure, I recommend that the employer pay the complainant the sum of €1500 in full and final settlement of this dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer pay the complainant the sum of €1500 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Dated: 19-08-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Failure to provide employee with complaint codes. |